M P ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. BASANT KUMAR PANDEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TWO matters are taken up together for disposal. The petitions are by the employer. M. P. Electricity Board, and respondents in the two petitions are employees/workmen. True, the main contention which counsel for the petitioner pressed in these two petitions relates to the status of the two respondents in each case contesting the position that M. P. Electricity Board and Ors. vs. Basant Kumar Pandey (02. 02. 1989 -MPHC) Page 2 of 5 they were not 'workmen', but 'apprentices'. But, for reasons to follow, we propose to hold them not to be apprentices, as contended.

(2.) AWARDS have been passed separately in case of each of the respondent/workmen or employee, but the nature of relief granted to them is the same. Both of them have been reinstated in service and have been awarded back wages. We have taken the view in this matter that a part of the award would stand, while the other part of the award concerning back wages must go. This we say for the following reasons.

(3.) K. N. Gupta, who has appeared for the petitioners in both cases, laboured hard to convince us that to the both respondents the provisions of the Apprentices Act, 1961, are applicable and on that footing, counsel contended that the two respondents, Ramashankar Sharma and Basant Kumar should be deemed apprentices. However, for a single, singular and salutary reason, we hold that contention to be wholly meritless. We have looked at the main provision cited from the Apprentices Act, which we extract: